Summary: A business owner complained that the Council had unreasonably refused her application for hardship relief from business rates. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms B, complained that the Council had unreasonably turned down her application for hardship relief in respect of her business rates. In particular Ms B felt she had satisfied the legal tests to qualify for relief.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms B provided with her complaint and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council about its decision in Ms B’s case.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 (‘the Act’) gives business rates billing authorities a discretionary power to reduce or remit a person’s rates. Authorities may use this power where they are satisfied the person would suffer hardship and that it is reasonable to do so having regard to the interests of their council taxpayers.
6. Ms B’s business is a community interest company which started trading from a property in the Council’s area last year. At the same time Ms B applied to the Council for hardship relief in respect of her business rates.
7. However the Council turned down Ms B’s application. In particular the Council was not satisfied with the company’s accounts or that the business is commercially viable. In addition it did not accept the company is providing an essential service. In the circumstances the Council decided an award of hardship relief would not be in the interests of its taxpayers.

Back to top

Analysis

8. Ms B was unhappy about the Council’s decision. In particular Ms B felt her case met the legal tests to qualify for an award of hardship relief under the Act and, in this respect, she pointed to an online petition showing public support for her business.
9. But I have concluded that we do not have reason to start an investigation in Ms B’s case. In particular I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the Council’s refusal of her application.
10. First, there is no legal right to hardship relief. The granting of relief is a discretionary matter for the Council decide.
11. However the Ombudsman may not question a council’s discretionary decisions unless there is fault in the way those decisions are made. But from the information provided I am not persuaded there is sign of fault in the Council’s decision making in Ms B’s case.
12. In particular I am satisfied the Council considered all the evidence Ms B provided and made a decision with appropriate reference to the criteria set out in the Act and its own procedures for dealing with hardship relief applications. In the circumstances I consider we have no grounds to question the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council had unreasonably refused her application for hardship relief in respect of her business rates. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman